A philosophical and/or theological discussion on the nature of things can be interesting . But this is a Pell / legal /trial thread.
2 Likes
Atheism isn’t about a belief in the laws of nature. How nature works etc is a different issue.
It’s simply not believing a god exists. You’re over thinking the definition of it.
By very definition, atheism isn’t a belief system. It’s a lack of belief.
Frog-poo
I am an atheist. I reject the belief that any Gods exist.
That is what I believe.
2 Likes
Your definition of god is your unknowns. You have your beliefs and it’s almost as if you’ve started your own religion. So once what you don’t know becomes more and more understood, there’s less and less need for a god.
My teachers always used to give me the answers when they corrected my work.
There is never “less unknown stuff”. Its a quantum that is “unknowable” by definition.
Of course there is! Once more and more is understood about the universe etc, the god which filled those gaps of knowledge diminishes. You have the classic “god of the gaps” argument.
It’s semantics, but it’s a bit weird to define yourself by what you’re not.
I don’t believe Chippendale chairs grow organically from the droppings of Phoenixes, but that’s not something I need to label or ‘have a belief in.’
2 Likes
Believing that you don’t believe is merging the two together.
-
Lack of belief in a god = atheism
-
Acknowledging such a belief isn’t really part of that equation.
Not believing something exists isn’t part of a belief system, not matter what it is. It’s simply stating that thing doesnt exist.
Christianity was a successful political movement. Still is, and just like any major political party it is peopled by decent folks who want balance and horrible carnts who are in it for the ‘perks’. Mr. Pell was one of the latter. For the record I have never voted for them, and won’t until they start taxing themselves.
For that reason I dont define myself as an atheist, though I dont believe in a god. I label myself a rationalist, because I’d rather be labelled by what I am, not by what I am not.
1 Like
Acknowleging God makes up the unknowns means you also don’t know how big “the cake is”. And id suggest its always getting bigger by definition.
And no, no interest in religion starting. I am pretty confortable in applying my philosophy in the ones already available. But you dont need to be in a religion to believe in God.
I dont find religions particularly progressive enough. (although it is their social progression which has formed society to a large extent)
You’re presupposing a god exists though. This you cannot prove. You presuppose this god fills that unknown stuff. How do you know that? It might be aliens forever writing a computer program… Prove that it’s not aliens creating our universe…(joke).
Anyway, got to get some work done…sigh.
Hes my vehicle for understanding the unknown, to give me strength in discovering it through scientific study, experience or to accept it is “gods way”. Ie forever unknowable. And there is plenty that is forever unknowable.
God is a shorthand term for lack of better English.
Why do these labels matter? An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. That’s the meaning of the word. It doesn’t imply any system of beliefs, or indeed anything other than a belief that there is no God. It’s no better or worse than the label “scientist” applied to someone who practises science, or “meteorologist” applied to someone who studies the weather, or “pianist” to someone who plays the piano. Who cares?
No one has done anything wrong, but I’ve locked the thread for a bit whilst we decide whether this tangent needs its own thread or not.
7 Likes
Appeal verdict due this morning. Try to keep it civil whatever the verdict.
1 Like